Merged "Pull It" (Stop yawning people!)

[The Big Dog]

Apollo:

"And 16.5, you left out points 2 and 3:"

That is false, and you know it. I specifically said:

"The whole "pull it" nonsense clearly refers to a secondary cause/ effect:

Cause (the fire could not be contained) -> Effect (pull back everyone from the Zone of Danger)."

In any event, it is clear that you are so married to this damned foolishness that you mind has snapped shut toward any criticism. Sad really.

I strongly suggest you focus on this: “the fire could not be contained” and consign your speculation about “pull it” to the dustbin of history, because you are making a fool of yourself.

 

[tsig]

Apollo:

"And 16.5, you left out points 2 and 3:"

That is false, and you know it. I specifically said:

"The whole "pull it" nonsense clearly refers to a secondary cause/ effect:

Cause (the fire could not be contained) -> Effect (pull back everyone from the Zone of Danger)."

In any event, it is clear that you are so married to this damned foolishness that you mind has snapped shut toward any criticism. Sad really.

I strongly suggest you focus on this: “the fire could not be contained” and consign your speculation about “pull it” to the dustbin of history, because you are making a fool of yourself.

It seems to me that we are at the "how many angels can dance on the head of a pin" stage.

How can anybody but LS know what he meant and what he was thinking?

Seems the height of arrogance to read his mind in retrospect.

 

[DC]

In Star Trek, I always wondered why the self-destruct sequence was never accidentally activated each time they engaged an ennemy?

Every time a photon torpedo would hit their bow, wouldn't that trigger the whole thing?

Worf: Captain, direct hit to our starboard bow.

Computer voice: Self-destruct sequence activated. Please abandon ship. D minus ten minutes. 10...

Captain Picard: Oh ****, not again! We don't have time for this!

lol beam me up.

you watch alot TV?

 

[Apollo20]

Pomeroo:

All you offer is this gem:

"If I say that I decided not to go to the zoo and it rained, I'm not implying that my decision affected the weather."

Not a good analogy!

If I say "I pulled on my car door and the handle fell off", would this not imply a connection between my act of pulling and the observation that the handle fell off? And Pomeroo, since when are people able to affect the weather? (Are you into chemtrails?)

Pomeroo and 16.5 it is interesting that you feel the need to insert the word "operation" or "back" after the word "pull" as in "pull the operation" or "pull back". LS does NOT say "pull the operation" or "pull back". He says "pull it". You are inserting YOUR imagined meaning... that is unless you've talked to Larry about this.... Have you?

By the way, I am happy to drop this topic, it really is going nowhere....

Yes, Pardalis, maybe we should all just pull it on this one! (I will leave you to decide what the "it" refers to of course!)

But I still believe it is very strange for LS to imply that he was not surprised when his building 7 collapsed. But then again perhaps Larry is a little autistic. Anyway, I certainly was surprised and found it heart-wrenching to watch those buildings come down........

 

[SatansMaleVoiceChoir]

Do we really need another discussion about those two stupid words?

I'm sorry, I must have forgotten the part where I specifically ordered you to drop in and discuss this issue...

I apologise if many of you veterans are tired of discussing it, however my reasons for bringing it up are perfectly clear in the OP.

Besides, it's a new spin on an old theme and (in my opinion) beats the latest spate of "Twoofers are stoopid and smell"/"No, Debunkers are stoopid and smell" baiting posts we've been seeing lately.

 

[SatansMaleVoiceChoir]

Pomeroo:

All you offer is this gem:

"If I say that I decided not to go to the zoo and it rained, I'm not implying that my decision affected the weather."

Not a good analogy!

But that is effectively the kind of analogy you are making; LS said "pull it", the WTC7 Building fell, therefore by your rationale, he caused it to fall.

Pomeroo and 16.5 it is interesting that you feel the need to insert the word "operation" or "back" after the word "pull" as in "pull the operation" or "pull back". LS does NOT say "pull the operation" or "pull back". He says "pull it". You are inserting YOUR imagined meaning... that is unless you've talked to Larry about this.... Have you?

This is exactly the point of my OP; it's an odd thing to say; I really would like some definate context on this one - if only to shut the twoofers up.

 

[CurtC]

But I still believe it is very strange for LS to imply that he was not surprised when his building 7 collapsed.

I don't think anyone who was in touch that day was surprised - they had been warning of its imminent collapse for more than three hours when it finally fell.

 

[Pardalis]

lol beam me up.

you watch alot TV?

I was only pointing out how ridiculous your theory is that the building was pre-rigged with explosives "in case of an emergency".

I don't think it would fit building safety standards and I'm pretty sure no firefighters would want to go in knowing the whole place is packed and ready to implode, even for a slight office fire.

I'm sorry, I must have forgotten the part where I specifically ordered you to drop in and discuss this issue...

I apologise if many of you veterans are tired of discussing it, however my reasons for bringing it up are perfectly clear in the OP.

Besides, it's a new spin on an old theme and (in my opinion) beats the latest spate of "Twoofers are stoopid and smell"/"No, Debunkers are stoopid and smell" baiting posts we've been seeing lately.

Quite right, I apologize for any derail, it's just the idea of those two words being discussed Ad vitam aeternam seems frivolous to me.

Love the avatar btw.

 

[Hokulele]

... if only to shut the twoofers up.

*Sings*

To dream the impossible dream . . .

 

[SatansMaleVoiceChoir]

I was only pointing out how ridiculous your theory is that the building was pre-rigged with explosives "in case of an emergency".

I don't think it would fit building safety standards and I'm pretty sure no firefighters would want to go in knowing the whole place is packed and ready to implode, even for a slight office fire.



Quite right, I apologize for any derail, it's just the idea of those two words being discussed Ad vitam aeternam seems frivolous to me.

Love the avatar btw.

It's quite alright; I know this isn't the first time you'll have had to wade through this particular quagmire, and it probably won't be the last time I read about it... Now, imagine the look on my face when my colleague came out with the comment I quoted in the OP!

 

[WildCat]

And one final point: if I was building a "command bunker" to deal with a potential terrorist threat I would definitely consider incorporating a "self-destruct" mechanism. The military do this all the time.........

Too funny!

 

[DC]

I was only pointing out how ridiculous your theory is that the building was pre-rigged with explosives "in case of an emergency".

I don't think it would fit building safety standards and I'm pretty sure no firefighters would want to go in knowing the whole place is packed and ready to implode, even for a slight office fire.

I also dont think it ever fittet "tunnel safety standards and bridges safety standard"
but it is officially confirmed that there was and is indeed explosives in tunnels and bridges, but they are removing it. never heared about buildings. but i think it is not so farfetched, considering what was in the specific building, the emergency command center.

 

[defaultdotxbe]

Pomeroo and 16.5 it is interesting that you feel the need to insert the word "operation" or "back" after the word "pull" as in "pull the operation" or "pull back". LS does NOT say "pull the operation" or "pull back". He says "pull it". You are inserting YOUR imagined meaning... that is unless you've talked to Larry about this.... Have you?

again you critique each individual word, we dont have a transcript of silversteins conversation with the fire commander, do we know "pull it" were his exact words in that case?

 

[uk_dave]

I also dont think it ever fittet "tunnel safety standards and bridges safety standard"
but it is officially confirmed that there was and is indeed explosives in tunnels and bridges, but they are removing it. never heared about buildings. but i think it is not so farfetched, considering what was in the specific building, the emergency command center.

I love the idea of secret explosives in structures.

Apart from the obvious (well I think it's obvious but maybe 'truthers' don't....oh the irony) risk should there be a fire, we have to assume that these explosives and their control gear need to be maintained at some point, so making them inaccessible doesn't seem to be a viable option (unless they are indestructible....indestructible explosives? The mind is boggled) so there's always the possibility that some stoned teens or a psychotic or a 'truther' or all three might discover said explosives and 'get up to no good' with them.

The swiss must be really stoopid if they took this risk.

 

[Pardalis]

I also dont think it ever fittet "tunnel safety standards and bridges safety standard"
but it is officially confirmed that there was and is indeed explosives in tunnels and bridges, but they are removing it. never heared about buildings. but i think it is not so farfetched, considering what was in the specific building, the emergency command center.

First of all 7 World Trade Center was not built in a time of war, and there hasn't been a war fought in New York for centuries.

Second, it may have been New York's emergency command center, but why would they need for it to be destroyed in an emergency? What was there that needed to be destroyed?

ETA: also, wouldn't the "emergency center" be the last place you'd want to be destroyed in an emergency?

Third, WTC 7 was also a civilian building with lots of tenants, especially banks and financial institutions, which brings the point again of why on earth would anyone want to have their offices in an explosives-packed building for?

 

[WildCat]

The swiss must be really stoopid if they took this risk.

They apparently did, and in fact still are! Link to article in google cache since the site seems to be down at the moment: Linky

 

[uk_dave]

Well, my stepmother is swiss............

...nuff said.

 

[tsig]

again you critique each individual word, we dont have a transcript of silversteins conversation with the fire commander, do we know "pull it" were his exact words in that case?

Poor LS his two words have had more exegesis than most verses in the bible.

 

[Mangoose]

The conjuction AND in narration simply links one event to another in a narrative sequence and is underspecified about the kind of relationship between narrative events. It could be used to link events that are causally related, or it could link events that are only temporally related. If one wanted to be less ambiguous, THEN could be used to make the temporal relation more specific, or FOR/SINCE/BECAUSE/etc. could be used to make the causal relation more specific. But it is fallacious to argue that AND necessarily entails a causal interpretation, and my reading of LS' out-of-context remark is that it can technically allow both. What he meant depends on context, just as we know that in (1) there is no causal relation whereas in (2) we know that there is a causal relation.

(1) The captain saw that the ship was taking on water too fast, and he made the decision to abandon ship, AND we watched it sink at a safe distance.

(2) The pilot saw that the ship was on target, and he made the decision to release the bomb, AND we watched the ship sink soon after.

LS' comment is out of context, so we don't know what the "it" referred to -- it could have been something in the interviewer's question, or the previous sentence (edited from the version that aired). However, from the content of his statement, we know that we was speaking to a fire chief (who in LS's mind had the authority to make a decision to pull "X") and he gives the PURPOSE for "pulling X" as preventing any further loss of life. Pulling everyone from the scene would satisfy this purpose better than the alternative (which could involve danger to those tasked with the job of making the building collapse, as well as the possibility of unexploded charges in the rubble -- a possibility enhanced by active fires in the building at the time of the operation), it was something that a fire chief was in a position to make a decision on (as opposed to authorizing a sudden demolition job in a building with active fires), and it also satisfies the maxim of "non sunt multiplicanda entia praeter necessitatem" by avoiding the stipulation of otherwise unknown conditions like having a building secretly rigged for CD (the tallest building ever rigged for CD, if it were the case -- all done in secret), or having the building quickly prepped in a dangerous situation (contrary to CD procedure).

It is possible that LS was thinking of a mixed, or weak causality here, that the removal of fire fighting support from the building allowed the building to collapse on its own accord, i.e. had the fire been actively fought adequately, the building had a chance of being salvaged.

 

[Dave Rogers]

It goes like this:

1. That the fire could not be contained.
2. That LS thought it was time to "pull it".
3. A decision was made to "pull it".
4. The building collapsed.

OK, let's see how this chain of causality could be inferred from the assumption that "pull it" meant "pull out the firefighters".

1. That it appeared unlikely that the fire could be contained without loss of life among the firefighters.
2. That LS, possibly having had options outlined to him [1], agreed that it was appropriate to "pull it".
3. A decision was made to withdraw all firefighters, and therefore not to fight the fires in any way.
4. Due to the damage inflicted by the unfought fires, the building collapsed.

Where's the problem with this chain of causality, as perceived by LS after the event?

Dave

[1] Silverstein was clearly summarising a longer conversation, so there may well have been a lot said that he didn't mention. It would be reasonable for a fire chief to have outlines a couple of options before Silverstein replied.